Some media folks love to posit Jeter and A-Rod as opposite poles, but really they are the same shiny clean-faced product designed for mass consumption. Jeter is just better at being Mickey Mantle.)

Alex says that is should read Jeter is better at being Joe DiMaggio. I considered that when I wrote the post, but decided to go with the Mick. Here’s Alex’s reasoning. I’m starting to think he’s right:

Because Jeter IS Dimaggio, cool, calculated, meticulously guarding his image. Mantle was the natural, all raw talent, and is known now as much for being a drunk womanizer–a mess like A Rod–as he was for being an icon like Marilyn Monroe and Jack Kennedy.

So is that the right analogy? Jeter is to DiMaggio as A-Rod is to Mantle? Could we do better? Is this a futile waste of time, in the same way that comparing players on the field to their predecessors is a waste of time? Or is it actually more apt than the statistical business?

4 Responses to “Analogies”

Did Mantle ever care about his image? A-Rod’s defining characteristic to me, besides his immense talent, is his self-consciousness. In other words, the opposite of “raw” talent. Highly refined talent, maybe.

That said, Jeter-Dimaggio does feel more appropriate. But A-Rod and Jeter are similar in the deliberate curation of their public personae.

think jeter-dimaggio/a-rod-mantle is a pretty good comparison, but mostly i just have to say how much i love the persona comparisons! star images (self-constructed and media cosntructed) are absolutely as important as stats and so comparisons, futile or not are indicative as means, even if not as ends.

Who am I kidding, for this blog they are way more relevant than statistical comparisons. Ted, you make a good point about A-Rod and Jeter both caring about their images Ember, I’m not sure if there are any flat rules, are there? We don’t believe in rules at P&P.